We've got conflicting takes on the film here at HitFix. Guy Lodge found it to be "gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh" at last year's Venice Film Festival, while a week-and-a-half later, Drew McWeeny found it to be "somewhat tedious" at the Toronto fest, noting that it "almost feels like self-parody." That last beat I'm stunned to see I brought up myself after seeing it recently, but I'm nevertheless somewhere in between the two assessments, with more to be gleaned as I revisit the work, I'm sure. "To the Wonder" will always have a special place for being Roger Ebert's final word on the movies, but the movies continue on. And now it's time to get your word on this one, so offer up your thoughts in the comment section and feel free to vote in our poll below.

Kristopher Tapley has covered the film awards landscape for over a decade. He founded In Contention in 2005. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, The Times of London and Variety. He begs you not to take any of this too seriously.

Tree of Life played just fine for me, having the luxury of watching it at home without expectations that it's a domestic Brad Pitt drama and just a movie instead a director's head -- it went down smooth like white noise -- inoffensive but completely understandable why the ticket buying public wanted out. That's why I'm scared to watch To The Wonder -- I don't want to be bored either -- and if you want an idea of what critically acclaimed movie I find boring -- There Will Be Blood -- and I would kill people over my love for The Master -- so there you go.

Oh this was TORTURE.I count myself a fan of Malick's work, from Badlands to The Tree Of Life, which I loved, but this was nonsensical.I have to agree with Drew that it was like a parody of a Malick film; seemingly endless (endless!) shots of Kurylenko frolicking in the light, Affleck seemingly told not to speak (I felt so sorry for both of them stranded in this mess, obviously convinced Malick would work some magic that failed to appear), Bardem in a completely different movie to everyone else, plot points that arise and go never to return. The absolute worst part has to be the inane voice over chatter from Kurylenko regarding wonder and awe and God - it's amateur in it's naivety and the film makers seeming confidence that this can pass for profundity.

And again, I say this as a fan of Malick and of the same sort of voice overs used in The Thin Red Line and The Tree Of Life. Perhaps Malick shouldn't move so quickly from one project to the next because it really seems he has come up against the limit of his style here.The pleasure of a good narrative well told is undeniable and there is room for more experimental forms but this almost destroyed my faith in Malick if he can't see that there is nothing here to savour.

I think this is the rare Malick film I can champion independently, since the mass majority seem to hate it. I was on board from the first shot, because I felt he was doing something both new and completely his. There's less a hint of "self-parody" than the meeting of his romantic style to the ironic present day America.

To me, it brings his style dysfunctionally into the American "now", in clear contrast to the more traditional European setting it starts in. That chaotic relationship between international mindsets hooked me hard, and I was more fond of Kurylenko's naively joyous character than Chastain's in 'Tree of Life'. Malick's romantic gaze doesn't belong in this anti-romantic world, and that's what I found fascinating about 'To the Wonder'.

I absolutely agree with this. I think while The Tree of Life might be more autobiographical, To the Wonder might be his more achingly personal film to date. I saw a rich, textured symphony about an artist wanting to atone for his mistakes and reconcile with the women he'd failed, but he doesn't know how to do it, so he gives them the floor. It's telling the way Affleck is almost always silent, on the edge of the frame, and shot from behind. We're essentially watching the film from his/Malick's POV.

Malick might like his poetry and naturallistic symbolism (much to other people's annoyance), but you can't make a movie about love and have non-characters not talking to each other for two hours. This ain't love -- it's abuse.

Wasn't a fan, but I honestly didn't go into it wanting to hate it or anything. The movie just dissolved into a shapeless fashion catalog for the fall collection. It also bothered me that for as much as Ben Affleck is the center of affection of two female characters here, he's given very, very little inner monologue or some time of his own. Even the rather peripheral Javier Bardem had more to share, even though he really felt like if he was the new Sean Penn here.

It clicked immediately with me, because I've been in that relationship triangle before, and the romanticism is always short lived before the reality sets in.

This is a film about romanticism and reality, and the suffering involved in shifting between the two.

Affleck's character is the classic exotic bird watcher -- an introvert romantic who loves the spontaneity and beauty of the free spirit, but wants to cage it and keep it. The problem being that free spirits crumble in captivity.

I suspect Kurylenko's character is manic depressive, whether by nature or initiated by the particular relationship. Her relationship with her daughter implies it may be the former. She's clearly depressed that she cannot be what he wants her to be, while he is frustrated by the same thing. Theirs is a wild and passionate love.

McAdams is the safe bet, and is far more compatible with who he actually is as a person, but he's still wrestling with the romanticism of a tempestuous relationship and, at the very least, a subconscious saviour complex.

Bardem's character is interesting in that his romanticism of his faith is in crisis, because he is surrounded by proof that faith alone is not enough to help the reality of his underprivileged parishioners. Other reviewers have indicated that he feels displaced, but I'm not sure that is it. To me, it feels more like a man coming to the realisation that he has more to offer as a compassionate citizen than a spreader of gospel.

Neil was inaccessible to both women in this film, to himself, and so it is fitting that he is inaccessible to the viewer. I found it completely fitting and I also found it sad. There are a lot of people saying a lot of things in our society today. Everyone has a twitter and a Facebook account, spouting off all kinds of words that really mean nothing in the end. And there is so much noise on the movie screens and in the media.

And Malick gives us a quiet movie of nature and of people just being. Nature and people just being human - things that have infinite depth if we'd just be quiet and ponder them for a while, if we'd shut off the thinking machine for 2 hours. "The heart has reasons that reason knows not of."

But what we have here are 3 people who despite the proliferation of words, avenues for people to express themselves, and seemingly greater understanding of the human psyche through psychology, haven't the first clue how to communicate with each other. They are all lost and empty and don't know what to do. They follow their passions towards another, looking for what is missing in their own lives, and then the passion dies down as it always does. And then what?

What I loved about this movie (and I do see why people genuinely don't like it) is how despite their intentions, 'love' slipped through their fingers. It was sad; it's always sad to see love die like that. And this film showed that emotionally, not verbally. Visually, not narratively. It spoke to my heart because I've lost love before; I've seen it continue to slip through my fingers no matter what I did, no matter how desperate I was, no matter how well-intentioned me and the other person were.

I think people are uncomfortable with artists showing this kind of emotion, especially when no answers or solutions are given for us to rise above it.

I finally saw this yesterday, and I am surprised (and delighted) by how much I ended up liking it. I grew to love The Tree of Life with repeated viewings, but the negative reviews for To the Wonder were concerning me. However, I found Malick's depiction of Marina's growing feelings of isolation nuanced and compelling and ultimately the Marina-Neil romance very moving. I really look forward to seeing this again!